Anna, Home-Grown-Terror, Sonia’s Health And Other Stories
Saeed Naqvi
Given the media’s preferences, Anna Hazare will, in the foreseeable future, obscure other stories which may be equally important.
An edit page cartoon in the Hindu shows Prime Minister Manmohan Singh leaning hard against a cupboard, trying to hold back skeletons. He is pointing at the opposition: “there are skeletons in your cupboard!”
This at a time when Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal issue was threatening to overshadow the monsoon session of Parliament.
The skeletons the Prime Minister is trying to hide are, presumably, corruption cases on a magnitude which have already sent Union ministers and others in that league to jail. But what skeletons is Manmohan Singh pointing out in the opposition cupboard?
For the first time ever, Home Minister P. Chidambaram, admitted in parliament that there “were indications of involvement of Indian module in the July 13, Mumbai blasts that killed 26 people.” Chidambaram continued: “we cannot live in denial; we cannot close our eyes to facts. There are home grown modules.”
What is it that we have been living in denial of? Only when the media takes its eyes off the Anna movement can this frightening story be brought into focus. Even a cursory investigation suggests that the Indian Mujahideen generally blamed for acts of terror since 2008 are actually the “home grown modules” Chidambaram is talking about. At some appropriate moment, for wider credibility, Anna may wish to take this one up too.
According to one of the country’s leading experts on terrorism, Wilson John of the Observer Research Foundation, atleast a dozen major terror attacks since the Uttar Pradesh serial blasts of November 2007, have been linked to Indian Mujahideen who, it turns out, may be these “home grown modules” linked to right wing terror.
Wilson John is candid: “if a fraction of what has appeared in the media about Indian Mujahideen is anywhere near the truth, then we are in for serious trouble – we have a terrorist group capable of networking across this vast country, one which can recruit, train and carry out attacks at will as if intelligence agencies and police forces and a host of federal agencies are either incompetent or complicit.”
The other story that must await its turn to be brought into focus is Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s health and the effect it will have on the Congress succession. Ofcourse the Gandhi family’s privacy has to be respected but the family would be well advised to end speculation. The Congress party could issue regular health bulletins if she is seriously unwell or to make one urgent statement on her health if she is recovering. The calmness with which Rahul Gandhi proceeded to Pune in aftermath of the police firing showed a certain unflappability, that Mrs. Gandhi’s health did not seem to weigh on him.
A spoiler for Anna and his cohorts could well be the fourth cricket test between India and England at the Oval, particularly if, by some miracle, India begins to look good. Principal anchors will then have to wait for custom with their Anna packages while the viewers will have defected to Star Cricket in droves. Rains could also ruin the Anna’s TV potential.
By accident or design, team Anna has hit the political jackpot. He has truck exactly the chord with the people, urban middle class particularly (exactly the one most taken in by the shining India illusion) because he provides them relief from a sense of helplessness in the face of rising prices which in popular perception are jumbled up with rampaging corruption.
The insensitive even cockey handling of Anna by the Congress leadership absolutely justifies the Mail Today banner headline, across two pages: “Cong a Rudderless Ship Minus Sonia”.
When Sonia Gandhi was in control she generally turned to the experience and sagacity of Pranab Mukherjee for all firefighting operations. But just when all political skill was required to handle Anna, the Finance Minister was nowhere to be seen. Nor was the quartet authorized to look after party affairs in her absence – A. K. Antony, Ahmad Patel, Janardan Dwivedi, Rahul Gandhi. A pity the Prime Minister’s apparent absence from issues of political salience is not even noticed these days – except by the opposition to score debating points.
How the Anna phenomena plays itself out is not clear. Should he run out of steam, middle class disappointment will be enormous with unpredictable consequences. The Congress, with luck, must have its leader back soon or, in the alternative, find some way to keep together the flock which has grown accustomed to the apotheosis of a family. A simple way is to hold party elections, never attempted after the Tirupati session of the Congress in 1993.
# # # # # #
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Ramadan Fast for Swami Agnivesh, Lord Meghnad Desai
Ramadan Fast for Swami Agnivesh, Lord Meghnad Desai
Saeed Naqvi
It was an extraordinary group of five that turned up at Delhi’s Jama Masjid at 3.30am last week for “Saheri”, or the last meal before the day’s fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. Saheri derives from Saher which means dawn.
Only those in the vicinity of mosques make it a congregational affair. And, when the mosque happens to be one of the world’s great monuments, Jama Masjid, people sometimes travel long distances to participate in this remarkable confluence of faith and aesthetics. The incentive to visit the area multiplies because of several well known restaurants, particularly Karim’s renowned for a special fare during Ramadan – Nihari, mutton cooked all night on slow fire and paya, or goat’s trotters, with “khamiri” roti or leavened bread.
These may sound like mouth watering delicacies but not when one of us happens to be an Arya Samaji, acute vegetarian, Swami Agnivesh, from head to toe in his elegant saffron outfit. (I carried home cooked vegetables for him.) Others in the group were Lord Meghnad Desai, a Nagar Brahmin from Gujarat, now member of the House of Lords who was in the reckoning to be the Speaker plus a Distinguished Professor at the London School of Economics. His wife, Kishwar Ahluwalia a Sikh by origin, a writer and their daughter, Mallika, who has just completed her Masters in Politics at Harvard and wishes to plunge headlong into Indian politics – an eclectic group, you would say.
My qualifications as a Ramadan guide would be quite as suspect as Ghalib’s would have been. Asked by a magistrate to declare his religion, Ghalib said: “I am half a Muslim”. The puzzled law officer asked him to clarify. “I drink but I do not eat pork!” In his letters, he is frank about his attitude to fasts. “I keep the fast mollified – a piece of bread here, a gulp of water there”.
Let me place on record the fact the each one of the group except Meghnad (he had to travel) actually fasted that day in exactly the sort of spirit that many of us participate in Deepawali, Holi or Christmas. The simple compact is: your religion exhudes a culture which decorates my spaces too and the other way around!
Every Ramadan, I visit Jama Masjid with family and non Muslim friends in pursuit of a singular purpose. This is my small contribution towards making ourselves aware of the apartheid system in which we live. Apartheid, as we know from South Africa and Rhodesia, means separate development.
In South Africa, apartheid, consisted in parceling Whites, Indians and African Blacks in totally separate compartments. It was in Lenasia, the prosperous exclusively Indian township (two swimming pools per bungalow were not unknown) that I first learnt how comfortable Indians can be with this kind of separation.
Jayant Patil, a Lenasia businessman, told me in 1992 (on TV) that apartheid was “good” because it “helps us keep the race pure”. How would Mahatama Gandhi, who spent 21 years in South Africa, have reacted?
This annual ritual was triggered by an incident in Allahabad. I was jolted out of my shoes during a lecture to a group of youth during communal tensions in Allahabad soon after Babari Masjid was demolished. I asked for the Hindus in the group to raise their hands. Half the hands went up. I asked how many had Muslim friends. Not one. I asked the remainder, all Muslims, if anyone of them had ever seen a “tulsi” (Holy Basil) plant in a traditional Hindu courtyard. Not one had.
Does it not resemble apartheid? In fact, it appears to me to be even more pernicious because here separation has not been imposed. It has evolved voluntarily.
Living in separate compartments, it is so easy for popular imagination to conjure up ogres, one about the other, during periods of stress. Worse than a negative image, however, is total disinterest in each other. This disinterest, at the level of governance, becomes benign neglect of the disadvantaged group, in this case Muslims.
What was the profit from this group’s visit to Jama Masjid. Well, we saw warm, smiling, hospitable people. Declining quality of cuisine. Total lack of any civic contribution to a sense of décor or cleanliness. It were not just the grimy streets, but even the wide stairs leading upto an ill kept gate opening onto a jewel of a monument, one of the very best in the world. History is being lost as the number of visitors, both Indian and foreign, decline in direct proportion to the squalor on the pavements.
There clearly has to be a muscular “Jama Masjid-in-Ramadan-Committee” to take responsibility for lights, cleanliness, and general ambience. The Lt. Governor and Chief Minister must atleast visit the area to see what they can do.
As for corroding the apartheid system, Swami Agnivesh and others were quick to latch onto a social engineering idea the late Basheer Hussain Zaidi spelt out. “Let every Muslim family in the country find a corresponding Hindu one (and vice versa) as a friend to be visited every month – not just for a meal but even such serious consultation as fixing the date for the daughter’s wedding.”
I know this language is syrupy nonsense to most today, but not to Swami Agnivesh.
Incidentally, is uninstitutional apartheid not part of the problem behind the current violence in Britain?
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
It was an extraordinary group of five that turned up at Delhi’s Jama Masjid at 3.30am last week for “Saheri”, or the last meal before the day’s fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. Saheri derives from Saher which means dawn.
Only those in the vicinity of mosques make it a congregational affair. And, when the mosque happens to be one of the world’s great monuments, Jama Masjid, people sometimes travel long distances to participate in this remarkable confluence of faith and aesthetics. The incentive to visit the area multiplies because of several well known restaurants, particularly Karim’s renowned for a special fare during Ramadan – Nihari, mutton cooked all night on slow fire and paya, or goat’s trotters, with “khamiri” roti or leavened bread.
These may sound like mouth watering delicacies but not when one of us happens to be an Arya Samaji, acute vegetarian, Swami Agnivesh, from head to toe in his elegant saffron outfit. (I carried home cooked vegetables for him.) Others in the group were Lord Meghnad Desai, a Nagar Brahmin from Gujarat, now member of the House of Lords who was in the reckoning to be the Speaker plus a Distinguished Professor at the London School of Economics. His wife, Kishwar Ahluwalia a Sikh by origin, a writer and their daughter, Mallika, who has just completed her Masters in Politics at Harvard and wishes to plunge headlong into Indian politics – an eclectic group, you would say.
My qualifications as a Ramadan guide would be quite as suspect as Ghalib’s would have been. Asked by a magistrate to declare his religion, Ghalib said: “I am half a Muslim”. The puzzled law officer asked him to clarify. “I drink but I do not eat pork!” In his letters, he is frank about his attitude to fasts. “I keep the fast mollified – a piece of bread here, a gulp of water there”.
Let me place on record the fact the each one of the group except Meghnad (he had to travel) actually fasted that day in exactly the sort of spirit that many of us participate in Deepawali, Holi or Christmas. The simple compact is: your religion exhudes a culture which decorates my spaces too and the other way around!
Every Ramadan, I visit Jama Masjid with family and non Muslim friends in pursuit of a singular purpose. This is my small contribution towards making ourselves aware of the apartheid system in which we live. Apartheid, as we know from South Africa and Rhodesia, means separate development.
In South Africa, apartheid, consisted in parceling Whites, Indians and African Blacks in totally separate compartments. It was in Lenasia, the prosperous exclusively Indian township (two swimming pools per bungalow were not unknown) that I first learnt how comfortable Indians can be with this kind of separation.
Jayant Patil, a Lenasia businessman, told me in 1992 (on TV) that apartheid was “good” because it “helps us keep the race pure”. How would Mahatama Gandhi, who spent 21 years in South Africa, have reacted?
This annual ritual was triggered by an incident in Allahabad. I was jolted out of my shoes during a lecture to a group of youth during communal tensions in Allahabad soon after Babari Masjid was demolished. I asked for the Hindus in the group to raise their hands. Half the hands went up. I asked how many had Muslim friends. Not one. I asked the remainder, all Muslims, if anyone of them had ever seen a “tulsi” (Holy Basil) plant in a traditional Hindu courtyard. Not one had.
Does it not resemble apartheid? In fact, it appears to me to be even more pernicious because here separation has not been imposed. It has evolved voluntarily.
Living in separate compartments, it is so easy for popular imagination to conjure up ogres, one about the other, during periods of stress. Worse than a negative image, however, is total disinterest in each other. This disinterest, at the level of governance, becomes benign neglect of the disadvantaged group, in this case Muslims.
What was the profit from this group’s visit to Jama Masjid. Well, we saw warm, smiling, hospitable people. Declining quality of cuisine. Total lack of any civic contribution to a sense of décor or cleanliness. It were not just the grimy streets, but even the wide stairs leading upto an ill kept gate opening onto a jewel of a monument, one of the very best in the world. History is being lost as the number of visitors, both Indian and foreign, decline in direct proportion to the squalor on the pavements.
There clearly has to be a muscular “Jama Masjid-in-Ramadan-Committee” to take responsibility for lights, cleanliness, and general ambience. The Lt. Governor and Chief Minister must atleast visit the area to see what they can do.
As for corroding the apartheid system, Swami Agnivesh and others were quick to latch onto a social engineering idea the late Basheer Hussain Zaidi spelt out. “Let every Muslim family in the country find a corresponding Hindu one (and vice versa) as a friend to be visited every month – not just for a meal but even such serious consultation as fixing the date for the daughter’s wedding.”
I know this language is syrupy nonsense to most today, but not to Swami Agnivesh.
Incidentally, is uninstitutional apartheid not part of the problem behind the current violence in Britain?
# # # # # #
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Where Has It Fled, That Arab Spring?
Where Has It Fled, That Arab Spring?
Saeed Naqvi
If Macbeth is a tragedy of ambition, the last scenes of the Hosni Mubarak saga in Egypt are ending as melodrama on that theme. It is pitiable pathos. There was nothing heroic about Mubarak, essential for a great tragedy.
A fallen dictator, wheeled in on a stretcher, placed before TV cameras in a large, iron cage: it was cunning choreography.
Cunning because it divided the people between those rejoicing at Mubarak’s disgrace and those who have lived in three decades of dictatorial patronage. There was symbolism in the clashes which erupted between rival groups outside the court house.
A nation so divided is unlikely to arrive at an early consensus on a Constitution or candidates for Parliament or the Presidential Palace. Meanwhile, who should hold the fort? The Armed Forces Supreme Council, ofcourse. This was the body given the reins after Mubarak announced his resignation on February 11, 2011.
And who handed them the baton? Vice President, Omar Suleiman, Head of Intelligence, incharge of America’s extensive “rendition” programme, transporting terror suspects to the choicest torture destinations, of which the one he himself ran has yielded such macabre stories as to make one’s hair stand. Where is he? If Mubarak’s court appearance is the beginning of a process, surely Omar Suleiman should also make an appearance in a cage some day? If not, he will one day take over the cage.
Those who have handled “renditions” or messed with Western Intelligence agencies, generally recede from public view – Omar Suleiman, Libya’s Moussa Koussa or nearer home, Pervez Musharraf, who lost his job after the determined Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry pushed him to reveal details about “missing persons”, a euphemism for Pakistan’s role in renditions. Pakistan’s enthusiastic participation in rendition is one of the reasons why the Afghan Taleban are so allergic to an enhanced Pakistani role in the Afghan Endgame which, as I have said repeatedly, is in any case not taking place anytime soon.
In recent days, there has been something of a buzz in Cairo that elections may be postponed. If true, this fact itself will place a construct on the Cairo Court drama. The army will have demonstrated the lengths to which it can go to punish Mubarak and his coterie. With this credit, the Army can buy some more time to stay in power. Then some more time, then more until engulfing tumult makes the Army indispensable for a while!
Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh and Europe would be comfortable with this delay. September is the month when the UN General Assembly in New York may be required to consider a vote on the state of Palestine. To have such an emotive issue in the vortex of Egypt’s electoral politics is to tilt the outcome in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood which is already being played up as a bogey – illogically, because in dictatorships the only political ventilators are the mosques. In these circumstances to pose the Brotherhood as the bearded ogre is to obstruct movement away from the dreaded Mubarak years.
The gentle Arab spring is a long way behind the region which has entered a phase of unprecedented turbulence, conflict and worse. In Libya, some European leaders are about to eat crow, not the best dish in Ramadan. The west wants Qaddafi’s head on a platter even though there is no provision for a Salome “nautch” in UNSC 1973. A prankster even in adversity, Qaddafi is now fielding his son Saif al Islam to tweak Europe’s nose. “We shall have an alliance with the radical Islamists” and make Libya look like Iran and Saudi Arabia. How can David Cameron and Sarkozy go down on their knees and plead “No, no, not like Iran and the Saudis”.
How can the west criticize the Saudis who are looking more muscular than them (for the moment) dictating the script in the region against Shia Iran. “Saudis are spreading a sectarian conflict in Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon”, says Ahmad Chalabi, once candidate for Iraqi premiership.
Events in Syria, particularly Hama, are not encouraging despite a visit to the blighted town by the US and French Ambassadors. Dr. Fayssal al Mekdad, Syrian Vice Minister of Foreign Affair told S.M. Krishna in New Delhi that Saudi King Abdullah was keen for stability in Syria which was only possible if there was no power vacuum in Damascus. Does President Bashar Assad’s continuance forestall such a power vacuum, Hama massacres notwithstanding? As rotational president of UN Security Council, India “condemned” widespread abuse of Human Rights in Syria but urged for an “inclusive and Syrian led political process”. The Lebanese representative at the UN, Caroline Ziade’s vote was a caricature of Lebanon’s position. She accepted the Indian draft but refused to vote. On the west’s behalf, “willing to wound and yet afraid to strike”. She could not have abandoned the club of growing relevance: India, China, Brazil, Russia.
Americans destroyed the Ba’ath Party in Iraq creating vast spaces for the Al Qaeda. Have they now concluded that the Al Qaeda is preferable to the Ba’ath and the “murderous” Alawites. Should Al Qaeda find its feet in Syria, (says this absurd logic) it would be one force that could ram into the Hezbullah in Lebanon!
All the Kings, Potentates and Dictators in the region must have watched with a sense of foreboding the image of Mubarak looking supine and helpless. The last scene in the melodrama should have these grandees in a scrum. The song in the background (to revert to Macbeth) could be sung in American, English and French accents:
“For a charm of powerful trouble
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.”
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
If Macbeth is a tragedy of ambition, the last scenes of the Hosni Mubarak saga in Egypt are ending as melodrama on that theme. It is pitiable pathos. There was nothing heroic about Mubarak, essential for a great tragedy.
A fallen dictator, wheeled in on a stretcher, placed before TV cameras in a large, iron cage: it was cunning choreography.
Cunning because it divided the people between those rejoicing at Mubarak’s disgrace and those who have lived in three decades of dictatorial patronage. There was symbolism in the clashes which erupted between rival groups outside the court house.
A nation so divided is unlikely to arrive at an early consensus on a Constitution or candidates for Parliament or the Presidential Palace. Meanwhile, who should hold the fort? The Armed Forces Supreme Council, ofcourse. This was the body given the reins after Mubarak announced his resignation on February 11, 2011.
And who handed them the baton? Vice President, Omar Suleiman, Head of Intelligence, incharge of America’s extensive “rendition” programme, transporting terror suspects to the choicest torture destinations, of which the one he himself ran has yielded such macabre stories as to make one’s hair stand. Where is he? If Mubarak’s court appearance is the beginning of a process, surely Omar Suleiman should also make an appearance in a cage some day? If not, he will one day take over the cage.
Those who have handled “renditions” or messed with Western Intelligence agencies, generally recede from public view – Omar Suleiman, Libya’s Moussa Koussa or nearer home, Pervez Musharraf, who lost his job after the determined Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry pushed him to reveal details about “missing persons”, a euphemism for Pakistan’s role in renditions. Pakistan’s enthusiastic participation in rendition is one of the reasons why the Afghan Taleban are so allergic to an enhanced Pakistani role in the Afghan Endgame which, as I have said repeatedly, is in any case not taking place anytime soon.
In recent days, there has been something of a buzz in Cairo that elections may be postponed. If true, this fact itself will place a construct on the Cairo Court drama. The army will have demonstrated the lengths to which it can go to punish Mubarak and his coterie. With this credit, the Army can buy some more time to stay in power. Then some more time, then more until engulfing tumult makes the Army indispensable for a while!
Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh and Europe would be comfortable with this delay. September is the month when the UN General Assembly in New York may be required to consider a vote on the state of Palestine. To have such an emotive issue in the vortex of Egypt’s electoral politics is to tilt the outcome in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood which is already being played up as a bogey – illogically, because in dictatorships the only political ventilators are the mosques. In these circumstances to pose the Brotherhood as the bearded ogre is to obstruct movement away from the dreaded Mubarak years.
The gentle Arab spring is a long way behind the region which has entered a phase of unprecedented turbulence, conflict and worse. In Libya, some European leaders are about to eat crow, not the best dish in Ramadan. The west wants Qaddafi’s head on a platter even though there is no provision for a Salome “nautch” in UNSC 1973. A prankster even in adversity, Qaddafi is now fielding his son Saif al Islam to tweak Europe’s nose. “We shall have an alliance with the radical Islamists” and make Libya look like Iran and Saudi Arabia. How can David Cameron and Sarkozy go down on their knees and plead “No, no, not like Iran and the Saudis”.
How can the west criticize the Saudis who are looking more muscular than them (for the moment) dictating the script in the region against Shia Iran. “Saudis are spreading a sectarian conflict in Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon”, says Ahmad Chalabi, once candidate for Iraqi premiership.
Events in Syria, particularly Hama, are not encouraging despite a visit to the blighted town by the US and French Ambassadors. Dr. Fayssal al Mekdad, Syrian Vice Minister of Foreign Affair told S.M. Krishna in New Delhi that Saudi King Abdullah was keen for stability in Syria which was only possible if there was no power vacuum in Damascus. Does President Bashar Assad’s continuance forestall such a power vacuum, Hama massacres notwithstanding? As rotational president of UN Security Council, India “condemned” widespread abuse of Human Rights in Syria but urged for an “inclusive and Syrian led political process”. The Lebanese representative at the UN, Caroline Ziade’s vote was a caricature of Lebanon’s position. She accepted the Indian draft but refused to vote. On the west’s behalf, “willing to wound and yet afraid to strike”. She could not have abandoned the club of growing relevance: India, China, Brazil, Russia.
Americans destroyed the Ba’ath Party in Iraq creating vast spaces for the Al Qaeda. Have they now concluded that the Al Qaeda is preferable to the Ba’ath and the “murderous” Alawites. Should Al Qaeda find its feet in Syria, (says this absurd logic) it would be one force that could ram into the Hezbullah in Lebanon!
All the Kings, Potentates and Dictators in the region must have watched with a sense of foreboding the image of Mubarak looking supine and helpless. The last scene in the melodrama should have these grandees in a scrum. The song in the background (to revert to Macbeth) could be sung in American, English and French accents:
“For a charm of powerful trouble
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.”
# # # # # #
Monday, August 1, 2011
Shaping The Mind of The Oslo Killer
Shaping The Mind of The Oslo Killer
Saeed Naqvi
Anders Behring Breivik’s monstrous act in Oslo is another leak in the sewer of Islamophobia, anti Marxist fanaticism and worse which runs through the western sub stratum and breaks out into open every now and then.
Sen. Joseph McCarthy terrorized America in the 50’s with his anti communist witch hunt. But there was sufficient muscle in American liberalism of that era to throw up a journalist like Edward Murrow of CBS News who took on McCarthy and almost single handedly created conditions for the Congressional Committee chaired by the Senator, the singular forum for the witch hunt, to be wound up.
If Breivik’s atrocity were a result of some home grown, Norwegian affliction, then I am certain (I have some knowledge of Norway and have met Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo) it would have been arrested well before it went over the edge. Indeed, the local media would never have created an environment in which such minds are shaped. In this it is not a solely Norwegian event. It can happen anywhere. Breivik’s is a globalized affliction, conditioned in the hot house of global 24X7 media. Murrow could take on McCarthy frontally in the local arena, without any globalized obstruction.
Breivik is the creature of the Murdoch press which has throttled the Murrows of this world. His mind set would synchronize perfectly with Bill O’Reilly’s the famous anchor of Fox News. The coverage of American military action in Afghanistan in November 2001 would have been orgasmic for Breivik. The channel’s star correspondent, Geraldo Rivera, whips out a weapon: “I would shoot him, if I could lay my eyes on Osama Bin Laden!”
In both, vocabulary and image, the agenda pushed by the Murdoch press (and, by infection, others including CNN and BBC) nursed and manufactured the Breivik mind by the sheer incantation of hyped anti Muslim-Marxist hysteria.
In the 60s, Protestant triumphalism of the Orange Marches were disrupted by Roman Catholics and Rev. Ian Paisley was taking up cudgels for Protestants and Unionists by spewing venom on the Pope. Across the Atlantic, Americans were mourning the death of their first Roman Catholic President, John F. Kennedy. It was in everybody’s interest to confine the intra-Christian quarrel to Ireland. In any event, there was no global media in existence then, except BBC radio, a useful colonial habit. The global media made its entrē as part of the triumphalism that the collapse of the Soviet Union brought in its wake.
The first major event covered by the new global media was Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, in February 1991. If Breivik was in his impressionable years then, he would have seen Saddam Hussain painted as a latter day Hitler, barbarous, invader of a neighbouring country, oppressor of his people. A young Nordic mind would celebrate Western triumph. The entire Muslim world – among a host of others – would internalize the outcome differently, as if from the opposite side of the trench.
Is there a hesitation to mention Christian or Hindu terrorists when Muslim names are mentioned as possible perpetrators within hours of the attack? The first scenario sketched by Stratfor after the Oslo outrage dwelt on Muslim terror. A trademark image of Muslim terrorism became vast congregations bowing in prayer. Bush Senior knelt in prayer all night with Rev. Billy Grahame on the eve of that messianic mission, Operation Desert Storm or George W. Bush before the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq: on TV these would have looked too much like medieval crusades. Bush Jr. restrained himself by simply mentioning “crusade” to describe his mission.
In this, too, the global media and its imitative appendage, the Indian media, have played their part. That which is known as the Bosnian war actually began with Serbian attack on Croatian positions – part of an ancient Orthodox Church and Catholic Church conflict. Bosnian Muslims were initially squeezed in the middle. But how did the global media cover the war? It consistently described the conflict as one between Serbs, Croats and Muslims. The Christian denominations were completely hidden from view. And the manner in which Europe kept aloof from the brutalities visited upon the Bosnian Muslims, day after day for full four years on live TV, Sebrenica and all, created conditions for Islamism to grow in Turkey, which has historical memories of Bosnia, and its lethal opposite number – the mind of a lonesome, psychopathic, confused young man in Oslo, making the Klu Klux Klan look like a moderate idea. It is frightening that the fascist badge he wore was designed in Varanasi?
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
Anders Behring Breivik’s monstrous act in Oslo is another leak in the sewer of Islamophobia, anti Marxist fanaticism and worse which runs through the western sub stratum and breaks out into open every now and then.
Sen. Joseph McCarthy terrorized America in the 50’s with his anti communist witch hunt. But there was sufficient muscle in American liberalism of that era to throw up a journalist like Edward Murrow of CBS News who took on McCarthy and almost single handedly created conditions for the Congressional Committee chaired by the Senator, the singular forum for the witch hunt, to be wound up.
If Breivik’s atrocity were a result of some home grown, Norwegian affliction, then I am certain (I have some knowledge of Norway and have met Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo) it would have been arrested well before it went over the edge. Indeed, the local media would never have created an environment in which such minds are shaped. In this it is not a solely Norwegian event. It can happen anywhere. Breivik’s is a globalized affliction, conditioned in the hot house of global 24X7 media. Murrow could take on McCarthy frontally in the local arena, without any globalized obstruction.
Breivik is the creature of the Murdoch press which has throttled the Murrows of this world. His mind set would synchronize perfectly with Bill O’Reilly’s the famous anchor of Fox News. The coverage of American military action in Afghanistan in November 2001 would have been orgasmic for Breivik. The channel’s star correspondent, Geraldo Rivera, whips out a weapon: “I would shoot him, if I could lay my eyes on Osama Bin Laden!”
In both, vocabulary and image, the agenda pushed by the Murdoch press (and, by infection, others including CNN and BBC) nursed and manufactured the Breivik mind by the sheer incantation of hyped anti Muslim-Marxist hysteria.
In the 60s, Protestant triumphalism of the Orange Marches were disrupted by Roman Catholics and Rev. Ian Paisley was taking up cudgels for Protestants and Unionists by spewing venom on the Pope. Across the Atlantic, Americans were mourning the death of their first Roman Catholic President, John F. Kennedy. It was in everybody’s interest to confine the intra-Christian quarrel to Ireland. In any event, there was no global media in existence then, except BBC radio, a useful colonial habit. The global media made its entrē as part of the triumphalism that the collapse of the Soviet Union brought in its wake.
The first major event covered by the new global media was Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, in February 1991. If Breivik was in his impressionable years then, he would have seen Saddam Hussain painted as a latter day Hitler, barbarous, invader of a neighbouring country, oppressor of his people. A young Nordic mind would celebrate Western triumph. The entire Muslim world – among a host of others – would internalize the outcome differently, as if from the opposite side of the trench.
Is there a hesitation to mention Christian or Hindu terrorists when Muslim names are mentioned as possible perpetrators within hours of the attack? The first scenario sketched by Stratfor after the Oslo outrage dwelt on Muslim terror. A trademark image of Muslim terrorism became vast congregations bowing in prayer. Bush Senior knelt in prayer all night with Rev. Billy Grahame on the eve of that messianic mission, Operation Desert Storm or George W. Bush before the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq: on TV these would have looked too much like medieval crusades. Bush Jr. restrained himself by simply mentioning “crusade” to describe his mission.
In this, too, the global media and its imitative appendage, the Indian media, have played their part. That which is known as the Bosnian war actually began with Serbian attack on Croatian positions – part of an ancient Orthodox Church and Catholic Church conflict. Bosnian Muslims were initially squeezed in the middle. But how did the global media cover the war? It consistently described the conflict as one between Serbs, Croats and Muslims. The Christian denominations were completely hidden from view. And the manner in which Europe kept aloof from the brutalities visited upon the Bosnian Muslims, day after day for full four years on live TV, Sebrenica and all, created conditions for Islamism to grow in Turkey, which has historical memories of Bosnia, and its lethal opposite number – the mind of a lonesome, psychopathic, confused young man in Oslo, making the Klu Klux Klan look like a moderate idea. It is frightening that the fascist badge he wore was designed in Varanasi?
# # # # # #
Monday, July 25, 2011
After Clinton, All Eyes on Pakistan’s Hina Khar
After Clinton, All Eyes on Pakistan’s Hina Khar
Saeed Naqvi
For the first time in my recollection, the Pakistan Foreign Minister visiting New Delhi will attract more notice than US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did exactly a week earlier.
There could be several reasons for this, the most compelling being that Hina Rabbani Khar is the first woman Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At 34, she also happens to be the youngest ever. Then, the Clinton visit coincided with the 24X7 focus on Rupert Murdoch’s trial by fire, taking the spotlight away from her.
It is just as well that the Secretary of State’s visit was in a low key, investing it with realism divorced from the hype which generally imparts to Indo-US relations exaggerated expectations.
The US has, in its history, vacillated between global dominance and isolation. A phase of inwardness may be in the cards.
Everyone knows the Civil nuclear deal is in a bit of a jam and Clinton almost said as much. There was nothing new in the US supporting India as a Permanent member of the UN Security Council. What was heartening was the imagery she used for India’s Election Commission: “it is the global gold standard for running elections.”
Without in any way offending China she spelt out roles for India in theatres of Chinese proximity – Pacific and Central Asia. India “straddling the waters from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean is, with us, a steward of these waterways”. Will this region “build the regional architecture of institutions and arrangements to enforce international norms on security, trade, rule of law, human rights and accountable governance?” Chinese know how to decode “human rights”!
She then talks of interlocking triangles: US, Japan (a treaty binds them) and India, also US, China and India. Similar co-operative linkages are sought with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. What Clinton sketched at the library in Chennai is a comprehensive document of intent.
It is in this context that she spelt out a scenario for the Af-Pak region after US withdrawal. “We and the Afghans are making progress on a new strategic partnership declaration that will define our relationship after 2014.”
What the US seeks is in fact a contradiction in terms: how to stay on in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US troops?
This explains extensive construction at the Consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif and at US bases. According to Russians, who know the terrain well, the US has 30 bases in Afghanistan of which the ones in Bagram, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Helmand, Shindand and Mazar-e-Sharif are, by the sheer volume of masonry, not temporary. There is nothing new in all of this. US diplomats in the Af-Pak have for the past five years been fairly vocal about their being in the region for the long haul. Yes, the counter insurgency phase maybe getting a new look, but the entire question of the US withdrawing from Afghanistan is, in my view, an open one.
Yes, there will be photo ops of Marines clambering onto departing aircraft or Gen. David Petraeus looking pensive in a helicopter about to take off. These would be effective visuals on US TV preparatory to the 2012 Presidential election but only if viewers had interest left in anything other the plummeting economy – at home, across the Atlantic or the Pacific where Japan has yet to find its feet after the nuclear disaster.
Some things are not likely to happen soon. The agreement that Americans seek with the Afghans on the bases they wish to maintain in the country is not a document President Hamid Karzai can ink in a hurry given the anti American sentiment. A puzzle for the Americans seems to be “Karzai’s state of mind”. Yes, the Americans are unpopular but not as much as the Pakistan army looking for “strategic” depth in Afghanistan. This is my personal observation after visiting Afghanistan. By playing both sides of the street, the Pakistan Army has lost credit both ways – with the Americans and the Afghans.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister will have met the US and Chinese Foreign Ministers in Bali before arriving in New Delhi. Who knows, Ms. Khar may begin to open up many regional possibilities if she is able to gauge the sincerity with which Dr. Manmohan Singh and his team contemplate Indo-Pak relations in a world changing at dizzying speed.
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
For the first time in my recollection, the Pakistan Foreign Minister visiting New Delhi will attract more notice than US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did exactly a week earlier.
There could be several reasons for this, the most compelling being that Hina Rabbani Khar is the first woman Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At 34, she also happens to be the youngest ever. Then, the Clinton visit coincided with the 24X7 focus on Rupert Murdoch’s trial by fire, taking the spotlight away from her.
It is just as well that the Secretary of State’s visit was in a low key, investing it with realism divorced from the hype which generally imparts to Indo-US relations exaggerated expectations.
The US has, in its history, vacillated between global dominance and isolation. A phase of inwardness may be in the cards.
Everyone knows the Civil nuclear deal is in a bit of a jam and Clinton almost said as much. There was nothing new in the US supporting India as a Permanent member of the UN Security Council. What was heartening was the imagery she used for India’s Election Commission: “it is the global gold standard for running elections.”
Without in any way offending China she spelt out roles for India in theatres of Chinese proximity – Pacific and Central Asia. India “straddling the waters from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean is, with us, a steward of these waterways”. Will this region “build the regional architecture of institutions and arrangements to enforce international norms on security, trade, rule of law, human rights and accountable governance?” Chinese know how to decode “human rights”!
She then talks of interlocking triangles: US, Japan (a treaty binds them) and India, also US, China and India. Similar co-operative linkages are sought with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. What Clinton sketched at the library in Chennai is a comprehensive document of intent.
It is in this context that she spelt out a scenario for the Af-Pak region after US withdrawal. “We and the Afghans are making progress on a new strategic partnership declaration that will define our relationship after 2014.”
What the US seeks is in fact a contradiction in terms: how to stay on in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US troops?
This explains extensive construction at the Consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif and at US bases. According to Russians, who know the terrain well, the US has 30 bases in Afghanistan of which the ones in Bagram, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Helmand, Shindand and Mazar-e-Sharif are, by the sheer volume of masonry, not temporary. There is nothing new in all of this. US diplomats in the Af-Pak have for the past five years been fairly vocal about their being in the region for the long haul. Yes, the counter insurgency phase maybe getting a new look, but the entire question of the US withdrawing from Afghanistan is, in my view, an open one.
Yes, there will be photo ops of Marines clambering onto departing aircraft or Gen. David Petraeus looking pensive in a helicopter about to take off. These would be effective visuals on US TV preparatory to the 2012 Presidential election but only if viewers had interest left in anything other the plummeting economy – at home, across the Atlantic or the Pacific where Japan has yet to find its feet after the nuclear disaster.
Some things are not likely to happen soon. The agreement that Americans seek with the Afghans on the bases they wish to maintain in the country is not a document President Hamid Karzai can ink in a hurry given the anti American sentiment. A puzzle for the Americans seems to be “Karzai’s state of mind”. Yes, the Americans are unpopular but not as much as the Pakistan army looking for “strategic” depth in Afghanistan. This is my personal observation after visiting Afghanistan. By playing both sides of the street, the Pakistan Army has lost credit both ways – with the Americans and the Afghans.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister will have met the US and Chinese Foreign Ministers in Bali before arriving in New Delhi. Who knows, Ms. Khar may begin to open up many regional possibilities if she is able to gauge the sincerity with which Dr. Manmohan Singh and his team contemplate Indo-Pak relations in a world changing at dizzying speed.
# # # # # #
Monday, July 18, 2011
Tokenism For Muslims Now Counter Productive
Tokenism For Muslims Now Counter Productive
Saeed Naqvi
In these unsettled times, it is always reassuring to be invited to banquets at the Hyderabad House hosted by the Prime Minister or members of his cabinet. It boosts ones sense of self, ofcourse, but it also enhances a sense of communal well being because, as one ambles up the carpeted staircase, one meets other Muslims in suits of reasonable cut. Next week, the beginning of Ramadan, will see the appearance of Shervanis and headgear peculiar to certain Sufi Shrines.
Would unsuspecting Presidents, Princes or Prime Ministers, from any one of the 54 Muslim countries, return suitably impressed with the well being of the world’s second largest Muslim community, having seen so many of them at a banquet meant only for the country’s highest echelons?
The Sachar Committee report into the socio economic condition of Indian Muslims would not make for such depressing reading had Justice Sachar taken into account Muslim attendance at VIP banquets and Iftar parties. In the interest of accuracy, a caveat must be inserted. For the Sachar report, flattering data would only emerge from banquets in honour of visiting Muslim dignitaries. If Justice Sachar were to ferret the guest list under Right to Information, he would find that a banquet for the Cypriot, Armenian, Serbian or even Israeli leaders would probably not have a solitary Muslim on the list. There would not be such self conscious deletion of the Muslim when other Western leaders visit but there would be no premium on them either.
The deep design behind the hospitality list for a visiting Muslim leader could possibly be that India is good to its Muslims and would therefore be good to the visiting leader’s country. But, snicker my non Muslim friends, this communal outreach flies in the face of the secular ideal which entails even handed treatment. Is it a nagging awareness of deviation from the equal-rights ideal, which results in dollops of tokenism doled out? Invitations to banquets and Iftar parties are the tiniest part of this tokenism. And, above all, having been in the drill of democracy for 60 years, Muslims have caught onto tokens as pacifiers. Tokenism is now counterproductive. Do an opinion poll!
Most pernicious of all is institutionalized tokenism. A special Haj terminal at the Indira Gandhi airport for instance. This sort of stuff invites the chorus “appeasement!”
Further, there are Haj subsidies and special VIP Hajis on freebies to facilitate their passage to paradise. Does the government believe that such favours ensure Muslim support during elections? Yes, a benefit once conferred upon a group is difficult to withdraw because such a withdrawal would provoke editorials in Urdu newspapers. This, a government on sixes and sevens may not like to risk on the eve of the critical 2012 UP Assembly elections. After all, 14 of the 21 seats Congress won from the state have a decisive Muslim vote share.
If such fears are to determine policy, I am afraid other tokenisms will also have an extended lease of life. A government so pulverized on the issue of Muslims is not likely to alter a totally untenable policy that the ambassador to Saudi Arabia must be a Muslim. The argument that a Muslim ambassador is an enormous asset during Haj is about as convincing as the presumed requirement for a full fledged air terminal for Hajis. If the state pulled itself out of this area of patronage, it would make immense sense for private enterprise, Muslim or non Muslim, to step in to facilitate Haj. Business by its very nature is secular. Witness Indians in Saudi Arabia: senior management of Indian origin are increasingly non Muslim because they are better educated, they do not seek five breaks in a day for namaz nor a month for Ramadan.
There is a lesson here somewhere for the short sighted Muslim leadership which has, by converting a remarkably secular, internationally known university, Jamia Millia Islamia, into a “minority institution” has gifted a dud to the community. Graduates from this institution will be discriminated against even in Saudi Arabia. A Muslim minority institution faces resistance in the secular job market.
As for a Ministry of Minority Affairs the less said the better! It is grist to the communal mill whenever it stirs out to serve the community. I have said this before: a non Muslim with a secular image in this slot would be able to chart out an agenda for minorities which is free of the odour of tokenism, which would really enthuse the community, not bluff it.
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
In these unsettled times, it is always reassuring to be invited to banquets at the Hyderabad House hosted by the Prime Minister or members of his cabinet. It boosts ones sense of self, ofcourse, but it also enhances a sense of communal well being because, as one ambles up the carpeted staircase, one meets other Muslims in suits of reasonable cut. Next week, the beginning of Ramadan, will see the appearance of Shervanis and headgear peculiar to certain Sufi Shrines.
Would unsuspecting Presidents, Princes or Prime Ministers, from any one of the 54 Muslim countries, return suitably impressed with the well being of the world’s second largest Muslim community, having seen so many of them at a banquet meant only for the country’s highest echelons?
The Sachar Committee report into the socio economic condition of Indian Muslims would not make for such depressing reading had Justice Sachar taken into account Muslim attendance at VIP banquets and Iftar parties. In the interest of accuracy, a caveat must be inserted. For the Sachar report, flattering data would only emerge from banquets in honour of visiting Muslim dignitaries. If Justice Sachar were to ferret the guest list under Right to Information, he would find that a banquet for the Cypriot, Armenian, Serbian or even Israeli leaders would probably not have a solitary Muslim on the list. There would not be such self conscious deletion of the Muslim when other Western leaders visit but there would be no premium on them either.
The deep design behind the hospitality list for a visiting Muslim leader could possibly be that India is good to its Muslims and would therefore be good to the visiting leader’s country. But, snicker my non Muslim friends, this communal outreach flies in the face of the secular ideal which entails even handed treatment. Is it a nagging awareness of deviation from the equal-rights ideal, which results in dollops of tokenism doled out? Invitations to banquets and Iftar parties are the tiniest part of this tokenism. And, above all, having been in the drill of democracy for 60 years, Muslims have caught onto tokens as pacifiers. Tokenism is now counterproductive. Do an opinion poll!
Most pernicious of all is institutionalized tokenism. A special Haj terminal at the Indira Gandhi airport for instance. This sort of stuff invites the chorus “appeasement!”
Further, there are Haj subsidies and special VIP Hajis on freebies to facilitate their passage to paradise. Does the government believe that such favours ensure Muslim support during elections? Yes, a benefit once conferred upon a group is difficult to withdraw because such a withdrawal would provoke editorials in Urdu newspapers. This, a government on sixes and sevens may not like to risk on the eve of the critical 2012 UP Assembly elections. After all, 14 of the 21 seats Congress won from the state have a decisive Muslim vote share.
If such fears are to determine policy, I am afraid other tokenisms will also have an extended lease of life. A government so pulverized on the issue of Muslims is not likely to alter a totally untenable policy that the ambassador to Saudi Arabia must be a Muslim. The argument that a Muslim ambassador is an enormous asset during Haj is about as convincing as the presumed requirement for a full fledged air terminal for Hajis. If the state pulled itself out of this area of patronage, it would make immense sense for private enterprise, Muslim or non Muslim, to step in to facilitate Haj. Business by its very nature is secular. Witness Indians in Saudi Arabia: senior management of Indian origin are increasingly non Muslim because they are better educated, they do not seek five breaks in a day for namaz nor a month for Ramadan.
There is a lesson here somewhere for the short sighted Muslim leadership which has, by converting a remarkably secular, internationally known university, Jamia Millia Islamia, into a “minority institution” has gifted a dud to the community. Graduates from this institution will be discriminated against even in Saudi Arabia. A Muslim minority institution faces resistance in the secular job market.
As for a Ministry of Minority Affairs the less said the better! It is grist to the communal mill whenever it stirs out to serve the community. I have said this before: a non Muslim with a secular image in this slot would be able to chart out an agenda for minorities which is free of the odour of tokenism, which would really enthuse the community, not bluff it.
# # # # # #
Monday, July 11, 2011
How Not To Project The Party or PM
How Not To Project The Party or PM
Saeed Naqvi
The invitation by the Prime Minister to five newspaper editors to share his thoughts or, months ago, TV editors seated around a rectangular arrangement for a televised transmission of ideas, are two recent examples of effort at building a communication link between reticent leaders and a precocious public.
TV, particularly its 24X7 variant, is a recent phenomenon, beginning around the mid 90’s. In other words, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and, contrary to the general perception, even Rajiv Gandhi pre dated the barrage of 24X7 channels rained on us the past sixteen years.
The first Prime Minister who completed his full term in the 24X7 age was P.V. Narasimha Rao, articulate in several languages but singularly indifferent to media arc lamps. Narasimha Rao and his Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh’s arrival on the scene coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of (it seemed then but no longer) a lasting unipolarity, accompanied by bugles of undiluted capitalism, which needed advertising which needed the amplifying media. The balance of power in news establishments shifted radically from the editor to the marketing manager.
It seems difficult to believe that before the “total” market takeover of the media in the mid 90s, newspapers were more free. True, the then 20 year old Doordarshan however largely remained a government department.
Overwhelmed by the market, print and electronic media began to serve partisan interests on key issues, leaving just that much space in between – a bit like the speaker’s corner at Hyde Park.
Having an “independent” media is one thing but having one held on the leash by Business Houses quite another. One does not necessarily need dictatorships to have a controlled media.
The quest for media management in an environment of a media so controlled is a quest for the impossible. Even assuming that the Prime Minister’s conversation with the chosen five last fortnight had helped clear the air on issues and that the unfortunate statement on Bangladesh was just that, unfortunate, how will the PMO justify conferring Prime Ministerial favours selectively, five at a time?
As the media is structured today, it calls the shots.
The culture of obsequious eager-beaver spokesmen for the major parties, hopping from channel to channel, gives power to anchors disproportionate to their grasp of the subject.
A private market survey will reveal, the channel hopping spokesman does himself and the party more harm than good. It imparts to anchors, not always informed, the role of arbiters. If a political party does not send its spokesman to defend an issue will it concede an advantage to the opposition which will? Quite the contrary. In fact the channel concerned will carry the episode only on pain of being accused of being biased.
Will this tactic remove the issue from public view? Not at all. Political parties must wrest the initiative and hold weekly briefings themselves rather than turn up in channels, cap in hand. The idea is to avoid the shouting match, the tu-tu-maen-maen format from which our Parliament has begun to take its cue.
The PMO, and relevant ministries must likewise hold regular briefings.
Briefings, by their very nature, are tepid and can be dull unless handled by someone interesting – and there are such talents available. Sometimes their being an asset outweighs the risks involved in having them bat for you. The person I have in mind reminds me of Mir Taqi Mir’s line: “Hai aib bada usmein, jsey kuch hunar aawey”. In other words he is cursed by his own ability. Talent inspires jealousies. No hierarchy likes to keep in its stable someone who can run away with the show!
Then, an essential requirement of a developing society and country is a public service multi-media, an idea that Rajiv Gandhi, Inder Gujaral, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan Singh have all endorsed. The Prime Minister himself announced it twice during UPA I. Regular meetings were held in which PMO officials participated. Then what happened?
As for the Prime Minister, his interaction with the media must consist in a projection of the future, not 2G and “haan ji”.
To quote Jean Genet, “as for living, my servants will take care of it.” The PM’s response to 2G like queries should be: “As for recent scandals, my minions will take care of them.” Find suitable “minions”. Don’t place the Prime Minister on show, pinned and wriggling against the wall, allegedly blundering on Bangladesh.
# # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
The invitation by the Prime Minister to five newspaper editors to share his thoughts or, months ago, TV editors seated around a rectangular arrangement for a televised transmission of ideas, are two recent examples of effort at building a communication link between reticent leaders and a precocious public.
TV, particularly its 24X7 variant, is a recent phenomenon, beginning around the mid 90’s. In other words, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and, contrary to the general perception, even Rajiv Gandhi pre dated the barrage of 24X7 channels rained on us the past sixteen years.
The first Prime Minister who completed his full term in the 24X7 age was P.V. Narasimha Rao, articulate in several languages but singularly indifferent to media arc lamps. Narasimha Rao and his Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh’s arrival on the scene coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of (it seemed then but no longer) a lasting unipolarity, accompanied by bugles of undiluted capitalism, which needed advertising which needed the amplifying media. The balance of power in news establishments shifted radically from the editor to the marketing manager.
It seems difficult to believe that before the “total” market takeover of the media in the mid 90s, newspapers were more free. True, the then 20 year old Doordarshan however largely remained a government department.
Overwhelmed by the market, print and electronic media began to serve partisan interests on key issues, leaving just that much space in between – a bit like the speaker’s corner at Hyde Park.
Having an “independent” media is one thing but having one held on the leash by Business Houses quite another. One does not necessarily need dictatorships to have a controlled media.
The quest for media management in an environment of a media so controlled is a quest for the impossible. Even assuming that the Prime Minister’s conversation with the chosen five last fortnight had helped clear the air on issues and that the unfortunate statement on Bangladesh was just that, unfortunate, how will the PMO justify conferring Prime Ministerial favours selectively, five at a time?
As the media is structured today, it calls the shots.
The culture of obsequious eager-beaver spokesmen for the major parties, hopping from channel to channel, gives power to anchors disproportionate to their grasp of the subject.
A private market survey will reveal, the channel hopping spokesman does himself and the party more harm than good. It imparts to anchors, not always informed, the role of arbiters. If a political party does not send its spokesman to defend an issue will it concede an advantage to the opposition which will? Quite the contrary. In fact the channel concerned will carry the episode only on pain of being accused of being biased.
Will this tactic remove the issue from public view? Not at all. Political parties must wrest the initiative and hold weekly briefings themselves rather than turn up in channels, cap in hand. The idea is to avoid the shouting match, the tu-tu-maen-maen format from which our Parliament has begun to take its cue.
The PMO, and relevant ministries must likewise hold regular briefings.
Briefings, by their very nature, are tepid and can be dull unless handled by someone interesting – and there are such talents available. Sometimes their being an asset outweighs the risks involved in having them bat for you. The person I have in mind reminds me of Mir Taqi Mir’s line: “Hai aib bada usmein, jsey kuch hunar aawey”. In other words he is cursed by his own ability. Talent inspires jealousies. No hierarchy likes to keep in its stable someone who can run away with the show!
Then, an essential requirement of a developing society and country is a public service multi-media, an idea that Rajiv Gandhi, Inder Gujaral, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan Singh have all endorsed. The Prime Minister himself announced it twice during UPA I. Regular meetings were held in which PMO officials participated. Then what happened?
As for the Prime Minister, his interaction with the media must consist in a projection of the future, not 2G and “haan ji”.
To quote Jean Genet, “as for living, my servants will take care of it.” The PM’s response to 2G like queries should be: “As for recent scandals, my minions will take care of them.” Find suitable “minions”. Don’t place the Prime Minister on show, pinned and wriggling against the wall, allegedly blundering on Bangladesh.
# # # # # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)